Understanding Wikipedia
Since its founding in 2001, “Wikipedia” has exploded in growth, providing Internet users with millions of articles on a broad range of topics. But the accuracy of information on Wikipedia cannot be taken for granted. The site itself writes that "while some of the articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly rubbish...use [Wikipedia] with an informed understanding of what it is and isn't." To attain such an understanding, read on.
Expand All
Collapse All
Email ThisWhat Wikipedia Is, and How it Works
Wikipedia, as the name suggests, uses a "wiki" system to build out its... read more»
Using Wikipedia Effectively
With a database of over two million articles and an enthusiastic community of editors, Wikipedia has grown to be one of the ten most popular sites on the Web. Myriad criticisms of Wikipedia’s credibility have not deterred the site’s visitors. So are these millions of users haphazardly receiving misinformation, or are they capitalizing on benefits that surpass its flaws? In this section we’ll explore the ways in which one can use Wikipedia effectively, and shed light on some its advantages.
Dulcinea's Insight
- One of the benefits of using Wikipedia is the enormous number of articles it contains on so many different topics. Whether you’re looking to find basic information on popular culture or something much more obscure, Wikipedia will most likely have an article. In September 2007, the English language version of Wikipedia passed the two millionth article mark.
- Wikipedia has a policy that requires its contributors to cite verifiable online sources for the items they are writing. While enforcement of this rule for more obscure topics on the site can sometimes be lax, the more popular articles usually have citations. One useful way to use Wikipedia is as a jumping point to other potentially more trustworthy resources, which appear as citations at the bottom of many Wikipedia entries.
- Look for Wikipedia to be more accurate on non-controversial topics such as hard sciences or ancient history. Disputed historical and political events are often colored by the contributor's ideology, even if done so unintentionally.
- The depth of Wikipedia articles is affected by how many devoted contributors there are to the topic. This sometimes creates a wacky sense of priority, which isn’t altogether a bad thing. For instance, the Wikipedia entry on the fictional Jedi warriors from the Star Wars series is 2.5 times longer than that on the Founding Fathers of the United States.
- Often, articles without citations, with debated neutrality or that appear incomplete, are labeled as such by a banner at the top of the page. This allows other editors to look for and pick up the slack, and for readers to be aware that the given article is unreliable.
Dulcinea's Picks
The BBC
has an article summarizing a study performed by the international journal Nature that favorably compared Wikipedia error rates to those of Encyclopaedia Britannica. While Wikipedia claims that this is evidence for its reliability, the validity of the Nature study is fiercely disputed by Encyclopaedia Britannica, as described in this BBC article. Unfortunately the entire Nature study and Encyclopaedia Britannica's full response are only available to Nature subscribers.
The Harvard Crimson
, a student newspaper at Harvard University, describes how a Harvard professor has begun to list Wikipedia on his syllabus, although this has aroused some controversy. The professor also seems unaware that Wikipedia articles are in constant flux and never in a permanent state.
The Chronicle of Higher Education
provides a detailed and in-depth look at academic reaction to the Wikipedia phenomenon.
Potential Flaws of Wikipedia
Wikipedia’s anarchic nature has led to some major criticism. Some of the more important and... read more»
Most Recent Guides
© 2009 Dulcinea Media, Inc.
